[yo_yo]

A local pair uses penalty doubles against weak jump overcalls and Take out doubles against intermediate or strong jump overcalls.
They ask about the jump overcall, then double if it fits the criteria.
Is this allowed under 40B3?
I dont actually understand the difference between f & g actually. Can someone explain it please.

[Cyberyeti]

yo_yo, on Sep 20 2009, 09:42 AM, said:

A local pair uses penalty doubles against weak jump overcalls and Take out doubles against intermediate or strong jump overcalls.
They ask about the jump overcall, then double if it fits the criteria.
Is this allowed under 40B3?
I dont actually understand the difference between f & g actually. Can someone explain it please.

No idea whether their method is legal, but it sounds like a reply of "Weak to intermediate" which is a legitimate strength might cause chaos.

[helene_t]

I don't see any problem with that, but obviously it would be in their own interests to ask about jump overcall styles before playing.

[MFA]

Legal sure, no problem.

It's normal to have different defenses to different bids by the opponents. That's perfectly legal. And it's perfectly legal to investigate the opponents' system by questions.

Law 40B3 is about varying the system for example on the mere fact that questioning has been going on.
Say we have a very unusual pet treatment, and if they don't ask we can be fairly sure that they don't have a clue about what's going on. For that reason we agree that when they don't ask about our bidding, we will proceed with system X while when they do ask about our bidding, we will use system Y.
That's not allowed under 40B3 (provided that the regulating authority has said so: "The Regulating Authority may disallow...").

[hrothgar]

yo_yo, on Sep 20 2009, 05:42 PM, said:

A local pair uses penalty doubles against weak jump overcalls and Take out doubles against intermediate or strong jump overcalls.
They ask about the jump overcall, then double if it fits the criteria.
Is this allowed under 40B3?
I dont actually understand the difference between f & g actually. Can someone explain it please.

Have you ever seen a pair employ different defenses against a weak NT than against a strong NT?

[gwnn]

like Helene said in another thread it's difficult to categorize your opponents' system when they say something like "8-13" "mmm intermediate? you mean like the bbo skill?" "usually a good 6 card suit, could have aces or kings outside" "well around about 10 points generally".

[gordontd]

yo_yo, on Sep 20 2009, 03:42 PM, said:

I dont actually understand the difference between f & g actually.

My law book doesn't have a L40B3 f or g.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps the OP could quote the law about which he's confused.

[shintaro]

hrothgar, on Sep 20 2009, 10:33 AM, said:

yo_yo, on Sep 20 2009, 05:42 PM, said:

A local pair uses penalty doubles against weak jump overcalls and Take out doubles against intermediate or strong jump overcalls.
They ask about the jump overcall, then double if it fits the criteria.
Is this allowed under 40B3?
I dont actually understand the difference between f & g actually. Can someone explain it please.

Have you ever seen a pair employ different defenses against a weak NT than against a strong NT?

Yep the 'French' defence to Weak NT was to ask the strength then pass to show similar point count

[helene_t]

blackshoe, on Sep 20 2009, 05:36 PM, said:

Perhaps the OP could quote the law about which he's confused.

she

[aguahombre]

hrothgar, on Sep 20 2009, 10:33 AM, said:

yo_yo, on Sep 20 2009, 05:42 PM, said:

A local pair uses penalty doubles against weak jump overcalls and Take out doubles against intermediate or strong jump overcalls.
They ask about the jump overcall, then double if it fits the criteria.
Is this allowed under 40B3?
I dont actually understand the difference between f & g actually. Can someone explain it please.

Have you ever seen a pair employ different defenses against a weak NT than against a strong NT?

Yes, and have seen a brutal string started by Fred, which I hope not to see again Agree with Hrothgar, though, that this is the same situation, and that the question before acting is valid. This also borders on the recent question about what responder may do if he already knows the answer and doesn't think partner does. So it is best to always ask, or always check in advance if your side has different defenses to bids which are not alertable but may vary in style.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on Sep 20 2009, 01:33 PM, said:

she

And I'm supposed to know that because..?

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on Sep 20 2009, 03:15 PM, said:

helene_t, on Sep 20 2009, 01:33 PM, said:

she

And I'm supposed to know that because..?

is Helene assuming all yo yo's are female?

[bluejak]

It is perfectly permitted to play different defences against similar calls with different meanings. For example, it is perfectly permitted to play one defence against weak two openings, and a different defence against Acol two openings. It is normal to play 2NT as natural over a weak two, and unusual over an Acol Two. Of course you will then have the problem of finding out what the opponents are playing: Helene's solution is completely impractical if you play a lot of different defences against different things and is generally unnecessary. With my more scientific partners I have various annotated agreements and it is merely a memory problem when they arise.

It is true that there is a specific problem with jump overcalls in that strange descriptions [eg "6 to 7 playing tricks, may be strong or weak"] might complicate life for a pair who have not been ultra-cautious in making sure they know their agreements. But that is nothing to do with this forum in one way: the important thing is that it is legal. You will find you can have similar fun in England where people often have different defences to weak and strong no-trump openings by playing 14 to 16: they never know whether that is strong or weak!

You ask the point of Law 40B3 and some of the answers have been helpful. The Law uses the term "vary its understandings" and an understanding to play penalty doubles of weak jumps, takeout doubles over intermediate jumps is not varying an understanding: that is the understanding. An example of what would be probably illegal under that Law is if a pair agreed to play takeout doubles over jumps if they do not ask, but penalty doubles if they do.

I say that all this is probable because you have not said where you come from. We do ask opening posters to always say what jurisdiction they play in [or put 'online']. A useful place to put this is in the topic description. The reason is that regulations differ substantially between jurisdictions, also Law options and interpretations do as well.

So when I say it is legal to play different defences to weak and intermediate jump overcalls, that is probably true in your jurisdiction, but I cannot be sure unless I know where you are. Your RA could actually not allow this. Similarly Law 40B3 allows the RAs to permit some of the things mentioned therein.

[Elianna]

aguahombre, on Sep 20 2009, 02:13 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Sep 20 2009, 03:15 PM, said:

helene_t, on Sep 20 2009, 01:33 PM, said:

she

And I'm supposed to know that because..?

is Helene assuming all yo yo's are female?

Because Helene just told you. Why would she lie?

[blackshoe]

If you're responding to me, Elianna, my answer is that I don't expect she did lie. My question was more along the lines of "how was I supposed to know yo-yo was female? There was no indication of that in her post."

[barmar]

I don't think you were expected to know beforehand, unless you know who yo yo is (as Helene apparently does). Don't take Helene's post as rebuking you for using the wrong pronoun, just informing you what the correct one is in this case.

As it said in the old cartoon, "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."

[blackshoe]

Heh. Fair enough.